Tags: late term abortion

Why has the “debate” on abortion decriminalisation in Victoria turned, again and again, to late-term abortion? Late term abortions are less than 1% of the total at present. So why is it that the coverage is all about abortion after twenty weeks? It crops up in just about every article on the Victorian Bill. I’ve been trying to avoid writing about it, because, well, then I’m just giving oxygen to the damn thing and becoming part of the problem. Like feeding the trolls. Late term abortion is really irrelevant to the discussion of the legislation, because the way it works will be virtually unchanged, and if we stop putting barriers in front of people who want an early abortion, it might even decline a bit. So why are the media and the anti-choice elements leaning on it so hard?

My initial guesses were, first, that late term abortion has a higher ick factor than early abortion, so that by focusing on gory pictures of foetuses and graphic descriptions of “partial birth” abortions (jargon imported, of course, from the US), the Tell the Truth crowd can play more effectively on emotion and uninformed reactions. Second, that by hammering the late-term abortion topic so relentlessly, they can make people assume wrongly that the proportion is higher than it really is.

Commenter Bingo Bango Boingo at LP offered a third possibility: that the battle for decriminalisation of abortion up to 24 weeks is pretty much lost now for the forced-birthers. Recognising that fact, they’re concentrating all their efforts on late-term abortion, as it is the part that will be more restricted under the proposed Bill and is therefore more susceptible to tightening amendments. (Anna Winter also remarked that those abortions, being so rare, are easier to make shit up about.)

I hope BBB’s right, as that is a relatively optimistic outlook. But still, the media obsession with late-term abortion prompts a few questions, for me. I think most rational people are aware that late-term abortions happen rarely in very tragic cases, mostly to do with foetuses which won’t be viable outside the womb, mothers whose lives are at risk, and very rarely for psychosocial cases which in themselves are very traumatic. But to read most newspaper accounts and comments from anti-choicers, you’d think that once abortion is removed from the criminal code, women will be thoughtlessly aborting for any trivial reason right up to the moment of birth. We’ll even be doing it just to get the baby bonus!

It’s such a jaundiced view of women. So many people seem to think that we’ll have abortions, even late term abortions, because we suddenly decide we want to fit into our Melbourne Cup frocks or some shit. OK, let me play their game for a minute or two. Let’s suppose that I’m a completely shallow party animal who just wants to look good, avoid personal issues and not lose my gym-toned sixpack or my partying lifestyle. Am I likely to have a late term abortion? Think about it.

Will I wait until I’ve got a grossly distended stomach (there goes the gym-toned sixpack, already) and have had to buy a second wardrobe of elastic-waisted garments; I’ve gone up two bra sizes; the people at work and at the club have all started asking interested questions; the family have all noticed; I’ve got puffy ankles and likely one or two other physical side-effects; I’ve kissed goodbye to my wine, cocktails and lots of my favourite foods; I haven’t had a proper sleep in weeks… Hmmm. Do you get my drift?

Media articles on decriminalisation are studded with words and phrases like “open slather“, “abortion on demand“– very popular this one, conjuring up images of women being all horrible and aggressive and demanding, and other loaded language all adding up to the impression that the decriminalisation of abortion will lead to non-stop abortion parties.

It’s based on exactly nothing, except for a deep cultural residue of contempt for women which the anti-choicers like Campbell may not even realise they carry. But it’s a cheap way to push people’s buttons. It’s a crock. And unfortunately, we appear to be stuck with it.

The bill to decriminalise abortion – giving the decision to the woman up to 24 weeks and requiring two doctors’ signoff afterwards – is before the Victorian parliament. And the coverage by the local broadsheet, the AGE, has been appalling. (State political editor Paul Austin, I’m looking at you.) Today there was a report of a head-smackingly awful development, made worse by a headline that misrepresents the facts completely:

LATE-TERM abortion “survivor” Gianna Jessen will address a meeting at Victoria’s Parliament House in a bid to sway politicians over proposed abortion laws.
The meeting will also hear from Victorian scientist and surgeon Graeme Clark, inventor of the bionic ear.
The 2004 Australian Father of the Year will tell the meeting that he is not anti-abortion in all circumstances, but he believes the proposed Victorian law is not the best solution.
Under the bill, which has the support of Premier John Brumby but not some members of his cabinet, abortions will be decriminalised up to 24 weeks and after that will be legal if approved by at least two doctors.
The meeting was arranged by an inter-faith religious group and all Victorian MPs are invited.
Ms Jessen arrived in Canberra yesterday to lobby senators to support a separate bill, proposed by Liberal senator Guy Barnett, that would result in the abolition of Medicare funding for abortions conducted between 14 and 26 weeks.
Ms Jessen, who has cerebral palsy as a result of being deprived of oxygen during a botched abortion at 7½ months, will put her case to senators over the next two days….

First of all, do you see what they did there? The byline gives the clear impression that a Top Scientist has come up with some, you know, scientific reason for not decriminalising abortion. If you read the article, it’s nothing of the kind. He’s one of two celebrity speakers engaged by the godbag lobby group the Australian Christian Lobby, and he’s speaking as an ordinary (if celebrated) citizen who is personally squicked by the idea of abortion, even though he isn’t even 100% against it.

Second, Guy Barnett’s medicare bill. I’ll get around to that I hope, but tonight I’m mainly concerned about the “meeting” itself. And thirdly, again, they’ve managed to make the debate “about” late-term abortion – which is the rarest kind and may even get more rare once women don’t have to jump through legalistic hoops to have an earlier one.

It’s simply pandering to the religious right by the Victorian parliament. What can possibly be the Brumby government’s excuse? OK, some questions for you, Mr Brumby:

*Even if it’s sponsored by an outside group, this must be consuming Parliamentary resources (venue, catering) and the time of government and opposition MPs, whose salaries we pay. What is the cost of this meeting going to be?
*Why does the Australian Christian Lobby get to hold this meeting at Parliament house? Surely this is according them rights above and beyond the normal ability of community groups to protest tabled legislation. Other groups, like the anti-pipe protesters and Blue Wedges, have been snubbed and also sued by this government. Why the preferential treatment?
*Will a pro-choice organisation, such as ProChoice Vic., be invited to conduct a similar meeting with speakers of their choice, so as to provide some balance?

Gianna Jessen is a singer who works the lecture circuit as an anti-abortion agitator with a unique selling point: she’s a late abortion survivor with cerebral palsy. Now I know that having cerebral palsy sucks mightily, and she would naturally have issues with her biological mother. However, unlike many people with CP in this country, she has made a nice little earner out of her vanishingly rare situation; here’s her booking agent. She wouldn’t be speaking for free; presumably the ACL paid for her. They should have also had to pay for a venue of their own instead of being given a forum in our (supposedly) democratic Houses of Parliament.

So, what should be a parliamentary debate is being biased by forced-birther organisations with money and influence. Not happy, John (Brumby).

The Balcony, Pavlov’s Cat and others have been watching, slackjawed with amazement, as that bulging bag of pus Julian MacGauran has spent years harassing the doctors and staff at the Royal Womens hospital.

And what McGauran’s excuse for grandstanding and ruining peoples’ lives like this? Well, it’s the overwhelming epidemic of unnecessary late-term abortions, innit. Because as every selfish career woman knows, if you’re going to have an abortion just for the hell of it and because you don’t want to be inconvenienced, it makes sense to wait till the eighth month, when you’ll already be stretched out of shape, have undergone multiple body changes, need to wear absurd maternity garb, and will have to undergo a more risky procedure than an early term abortion.

Yah, absolutely, I think we just redefined the term no-brainer.

So, where’s this epidemic of unnecessary late-term abortion? Let’s assume the mother and the doctors made the wrong decision (which I don’t). This case happened six years ago. So where are all the other instances?Mr McGauran has latched onto this unfortunate case like the sucking parasite that he is because he doesn’t have any others.

The abortion “debate” (read anti-abortion campaign) is off and running. Wake up and smell the dishonesty.

Watch out for organisations with confidence-inspiring names like “Foundation for Human Development” (a front for the NSW Right to Life) and “Pregnancy Counselling Australia” (also a RTL front). No, I’m not saying RTL has no right to exist and air their opinions, but why the coyness about using their real name? Why the sneaking around? Well, maybe it’s so you can (in the case of Pregnancy Counselling Australia) attract vulnerable young women on the basis of a White Pages ad, without your opponents noticing.

Well, not for a while, anyway. Just keep an eye out for spokespeople from these organisations and others in the paper and on the radio. Hope for an articulate, well coordinated opposition. Fair and balanced?

Prepare for some outrageous massaging of statistics, too. We already have an abortion “epidemic”; Women are just whipping ’em out with incredible ease and callousness; Many of these are gruesome late term abortions with perfectly cute little bubs left mewling feebly in kidney dishes.

Fortunately, the reality is very different. But we know that won’t stop the lobbyists, and they can be very convincing – remember WMD?

Why don’t I supply alternative statistics? Because there aren’t any good accurate figures on abortion in Australia. Besides numerous problems such as collecting data in private clinics versus the public system, there are only statistics on the medical procedures surrounding abortion. Therefore, the “epidemic” that Mr Boswell and the right to lifers are so upset about includes curettages and other processes that are carried out when a woman miscarries.

So, the “epidemic” includes procedures that are “abortion” in a narrow medical sense but not in the sense the right-to-lifers use.

If you follow Alas, a Blog and other feminist or political blogs you will be familiar with the resurgence of the “abortion debate” (read, push to restrict or eliminate abortion driven by the religious Right) in the US. And if you noticed the new resurgence of the religious Right in Australia since the last election, you won’t be surprised Australia is catching the virus.

At first I was heartened by the fact that Howard and other prominent social conservative Liberals seemed unenthusiastic about a change in abortion laws (insofar as Medicare rebates are concerned that is – that’s the only power the Feds have.) But then I heard this. Does this mean they know a change in abortion laws isn’t necessary – this kind of “reform” will guarantee they will get what they want anyway?

This could be interesting. Too interesting. We need to wade into this if necessary, for our daughters’ sake.